Supreme Court frees firms from decades of limits on political campaign spending

[nathanm]

That damned "Freedom of Speech" thing mucking up our political process again.

Money is no more speech than it is food.

Corporate personhood was no more intended by the 14th amendment than abortion was intended to be a constitutional right under the 5th amendment. All of these things are solely fantasy made up by the Court, regardless of my opinion upon the issues themselves.

I think they money as speech thing is probably the stupidest of all.

Besides, any time the government tries to restrict individual freedom of speech (through "time, place, and manner" laws), the Court seems to go along. Somehow restricting when a corporation may advocate the election of a particular political candidate through advertising doesn't manage to fall under that exception, either.

[Conan71]

Wow, FOTD, did you tie one on last night?  Quite a rant.

Something I'm stuck on is this:

If free speech is free speech and it includes corporate entities, how does the FCC legally get away with imposing fines upon radio personalities and the corporations they work for if they broadcast something "offensive"?  Isn't that restricting first amendment rights when the government has a list of things they consider offensive and can assess penalties for broadcasting offensive speech?

There must be several different standards at work here, either that or I'm a lot more ignorant of contitutional law than I give myself credit for.

Nathan, good one: "I think they money as speech thing is probably the stupidest of all."

I honestly still am stunned the conservative majority of SCOTUS came up with this.  I truly understand the Constitution was intended to be a living document subject to interpretation over the ages, this simply is the wrong interpretation.

[rwarn17588]

Wow, FOTD, did you tie one on last night?  Quite a rant.

Something I'm stuck on is this:

If free speech is free speech and it includes corporate entities, how does the FCC legally get away with imposing fines upon radio personalities and the corporations they work for if they broadcast something "offensive"?  Isn't that restricting first amendment rights when the government has a list of things they consider offensive and can assess penalties for broadcasting offensive speech?

There must be several different standards at work here, either that or I'm a lot more ignorant of contitutional law than I give myself credit for.

Nathan, good one: "I think they money as speech thing is probably the stupidest of all."

I honestly still am stunned the conservative majority of SCOTUS came up with this.  I truly understand the Constitution was intended to be a living document subject to interpretation over the ages, this simply is the wrong interpretation.

There *are* different standards. It's that the FCC controls a finite resource called bandwidth and airwaves, mostly to keep frequencies from bumping into each other, but that's not the only reason. For the public interest, the FCC says you can't use George Carlin's seven words or other such things without repercussions. I'm not saying that's right, but that's the argument.

I think the argument is becoming more and more weak, however, when you have a gazillion channels on cable and satellite TV, plus competitors on Internet and satellite radio. I don't think the "finite" airwaves argument holds water anymore.

And, yes, I agree with Conan that this was a horrible decision.

And, yes, I agree that based on FOTD's increasingly erratic posts, he/she has been tying one on frequently in recent days, to where it wouldn't surprise me if he/she is found in a ditch, cradling a bottle with one hand and a bong in the other.

And yes, guido, I'd sign any law in a New York minute that would forbid money to politicians from unions, lawyer groups, corporations, and the like. If you want a voice in politics, write a letter, send an e-mail, make a phone call, or go to town hall meetings like everyone else.

[guido911]

There is no solution you idiot....yes you are...you right wing spooner...you couldn't be objective if your life depended on it...you are such a friggin reactionary...you speak with fork tounge out of both sides of your mouth...at least this devil is progressive and can bend .... but you Doe Doe and your dumbfu#4istanian ilk are inflexible to the point that ruins this once Great cuntry.

Just curious, what kind of dick bump backs legalized bribery? The RePukelickans call it a victory for free speech. So sure their next step is going to remove censorship on tv and unregulation on radio broadcasting. Pi$$ant hypocrite. And when you say, "The law has been settled for generations that corporations are "persons" for purposes of the 14th amendment which, by other case law, provides them federal rights" it only goes to show how you basterdize the Constitution to fit your own arrogant desires. Your type continues to prick the truth with manipulative unmitigated bullsh!t to fit your needs.

Clarence Thomas is probably your favorite Supreme. Or is it one of the other evil fawk wads? Roberts, Alito and Scalia? Or that swinging dude Kennedy?
Who do you love? China? Saudi Arabia? The Emirates? The Russians?

You betcha, Guido!

Ladies and Gentlemen, you have just witnessed what losing an argument looks like on the internet. Now, let me introduce you to aox:

[Breadburner]

There is no solution you idiot....yes you are...you right wing spooner...you couldn't be objective if your life depended on it...you are such a friggin reactionary...you speak with fork tounge out of both sides of your mouth...at least this devil is progressive and can bend .... but you Doe Doe and your dumbfu#4istanian ilk are inflexible to the point that ruins this once Great cuntry.

Just curious, what kind of dick bump backs legalized bribery? The RePukelickans call it a victory for free speech. So sure their next step is going to remove censorship on tv and unregulation on radio broadcasting. Pi$$ant hypocrite. And when you say, "The law has been settled for generations that corporations are "persons" for purposes of the 14th amendment which, by other case law, provides them federal rights" it only goes to show how you basterdize the Constitution to fit your own arrogant desires. Your type continues to prick the truth with manipulative unmitigated bullsh!t to fit your needs.

Clarence Thomas is probably your favorite Supreme. Or is it one of the other evil fawk wads? Roberts, Alito and Scalia? Or that swinging dude Kennedy?
Who do you love? China? Saudi Arabia? The Emirates? The Russians?

You betcha, Guido!

You have just described your-self, party and  president to a tee.....

[Gaspar]

There is no solution you idiot....yes you are...you right wing spooner...you couldn't be objective if your life depended on it...you are such a friggin reactionary...you speak with fork tounge out of both sides of your mouth...at least this devil is progressive and can bend .... but you Doe Doe and your dumbfu#4istanian ilk are inflexible to the point that ruins this once Great cuntry.

Just curious, what kind of dick bump backs legalized bribery? The RePukelickans call it a victory for free speech. So sure their next step is going to remove censorship on tv and unregulation on radio broadcasting. Pi$$ant hypocrite. And when you say, "The law has been settled for generations that corporations are "persons" for purposes of the 14th amendment which, by other case law, provides them federal rights" it only goes to show how you basterdize the Constitution to fit your own arrogant desires. Your type continues to prick the truth with manipulative unmitigated bullsh!t to fit your needs.

Clarence Thomas is probably your favorite Supreme. Or is it one of the other evil fawk wads? Roberts, Alito and Scalia? Or that swinging dude Kennedy?
Who do you love? China? Saudi Arabia? The Emirates? The Russians?

You betcha, Guido!

FAIL!

[FOTD]

That slasher Burner shows up with another slap happy attempt at discussion.....you ole dick bump sucker puncher.

Defend your position.

Try this on for size: Appoint more than 9 justices to SCOTUCSA. There's nothing in the constitution regarding number of chief justices. Correct me if wrong because FOTD can admit he's wrong which none of you seem to be able to recognize.

Scanned through Fox News last night and surprisingly, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren didn't mention the very controversial and pro-corporatist Citizens Untied ruling by the Supreme court. Not a word. It reminds me of how they pretty much ignored the Haiti earthquake.

If the teabaggers are truly as opposed to corporate power as they claim, they logically would hate this ruling.
Logic ain't big with Dunbfuckistanians.

WalMart is practically this cuntry's State department in China. The White House should stop thinking about "right" vs. "left" divisive terminology.  What we the people want to simply know is "whose side are you on?"
The Repukelican justices are on the side of global corporate governance.

[Breadburner]

That slasher Burner shows up with another slap happy attempt at discussion.....you ole dick bump sucker puncher.

Defend your position.

Try this on for size: Appoint more than 9 justices to SCOTUCSA. There's nothing in the constitution regarding number of chief justices. Correct me if wrong because FOTD can admit he's wrong which none of you seem to be able to recognize.

Scanned through Fox News last night and surprisingly, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren didn't mention the very controversial and pro-corporatist Citizens Untied ruling by the Supreme court. Not a word. It reminds me of how they pretty much ignored the Haiti earthquake.

If the teabaggers are truly as opposed to corporate power as they claim, they logically would hate this ruling.
Logic ain't big with Dunbfuckistanians.

WalMart is practically this cuntry's State department in China. The White House should stop thinking about "right" vs. "left" divisive terminology.  What we the people want to simply know is "whose side are you on?"
The Repukelican justices are on the side of global corporate governance.

You next nic can be SCROTUS.....

[Gaspar]

That slasher Burner shows up with another slap happy attempt at discussion.....you ole dick bump sucker puncher.

Defend your position.

Try this on for size: Appoint more than 9 justices to SCOTUCSA. There's nothing in the constitution regarding number of chief justices. Correct me if wrong because FOTD can admit he's wrong which none of you seem to be able to recognize.

Scanned through Fox News last night and surprisingly, Glenn Beck, Bill O'Reilly, Sean Hannity and Greta Van Susteren didn't mention the very controversial and pro-corporatist Citizens Untied ruling by the Supreme court. Not a word. It reminds me of how they pretty much ignored the Haiti earthquake.

If the teabaggers are truly as opposed to corporate power as they claim, they logically would hate this ruling.
Logic ain't big with Dunbfuckistanians.

WalMart is practically this cuntry's State department in China. The White House should stop thinking about "right" vs. "left" divisive terminology.  What we the people want to simply know is "whose side are you on?"
The Repukelican justices are on the side of global corporate governance.

Someone got up on the wrong side of the bong.

[FOTD]

Gassie, defend a position. Name calling is my forte, but you also will find truth there.

Where do you stand on this ruling?

[Gaspar]

Gassie, defend a position. Name calling is my forte, but you also will find truth there.

Where do you stand on this ruling?

Ok, I am in 100% agreement with the Supreme Court.  As Justice Kennedy said "The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."   Holy Crap!  Someone in Washington read the constitution.

You see, ultimately it is the voter that makes the decision.  Corporations, individuals, and other groups of people should be free to promote candidates as they see fit.  This action should not be taken without disclaimer or permission of the candidate and it is the voter's decision to support that message dependant on their support of the candidate or the group that wishes to promote that candidate.

The biggest fear here, and rightfully so, is that the Republicans typically have the support of successful companies because Republican policies support business growth and success.  Conversely the Democrats typically have the support of the unions, medical industry, social groups, and litigators (lawyers) because their policies support government growth in the legislative and judicial sectors and support the success and finance of such groups through taxation (looting of course).

This ruling is aligned with the constitution.  Now that is not to say that the looters will not attempt to change the constitution.  Worry not FOTD, those you hail are, as we speak, toiling to eliminate the first amendment. I have no doubt their efforts will be both creative and entertaining.  Nader's already on it!  He has demanded "a constitutional corrective."  LOL!

It's important for people to know where the money currently comes from: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=A&cycle=2010

[Conan71]

Gaspar, I don't think anyone believes corporations should be muzzled or not free to support candidates.  But, essentially allowing corporations unfettered financial access to candidates just ripens the tree for even more corruption in Washington.  While one argument I'm hearing is: "this levels the playing field between unions and corporations in politics", this also could allow asshats like Hugo Chavez to push money via CITGO, quite legally,  into the coffers of very left-leaning candidates.  I can even envision corporations being created to take advantage of this ruling.

I see this as leading to rule by an even narrower, well-funded ruling class with even fewer altruistic motives, which doesn't have individual liberties as their primary objective.

Only time will tell if I'm wrong, but I suspect this ruling is going to come back and bite conservatives in the a$s.

[Townsend]

Only time will tell if I'm wrong, but I suspect this ruling is going to come back and bite conservatives in the a$s.

When this goes wrong blame will be thrown from both sides of the aisle.  Every a$s will be gnawed on.

[FOTD]

Ok, I am in 100% agreement with the Supreme Court.  As Justice Kennedy said "The government may regulate corporate political speech through disclaimer and disclosure requirements, but it may not suppress that speech altogether."   Holy Crap!  Someone in Washington read the constitution.

You see, ultimately it is the voter that makes the decision.  Corporations, individuals, and other groups of people should be free to promote candidates as they see fit.  This action should not be taken without disclaimer or permission of the candidate and it is the voter's decision to support that message dependant on their support of the candidate or the group that wishes to promote that candidate.

The biggest fear here, and rightfully so, is that the Republicans typically have the support of successful companies because Republican policies support business growth and success.  Conversely the Democrats typically have the support of the unions, medical industry, social groups, and litigators (lawyers) because their policies support government growth in the legislative and judicial sectors and support the success and finance of such groups through taxation (looting of course).

This ruling is aligned with the constitution.  Now that is not to say that the looters will not attempt to change the constitution.  Worry not FOTD, those you hail are, as we speak, toiling to eliminate the first amendment. I have no doubt their efforts will be both creative and entertaining.  Nader's already on it!  He has demanded "a constitutional corrective."  LOL!

It's important for people to know where the money currently comes from: http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php?party=A&cycle=2010

So. You really have no clear vision of where this is headed? Ralph Nader sucks we can agree on. But you should love the fact he helped Bush get elected setting the stage for a radical court.

Do you see no conflict of interest being forced on voters? Can't disagree with the way you have framed which special interest groups belong to which party but without regard to who works for them and who they work for it becomes meaningless. The future might hold much different alliances and who knows how much uncontrolled spending to lie to the voters.


FOTD could rage on but it would be a waste of time...he's out buying small amounts of the securities tied to the present and future Corporatist's in order to disrupt stockholder meetings and some political agendas.

But here's a decent read because it's important to see the future:

http://www.opensecrets.org/ vote in this poll.



Analysis: Winners, losers in Supreme Court ruling
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_campaign_finance_winners_losers_analysis;_ylt=AhkP3rNSLWjcVHUxJxo8zGOs0NUE;_ylu=X3oDMTQ2bGZkY3FsBGFzc2V0A2FwLzIwMTAwMTIxL3VzX2NhbXBhaWduX2ZpbmFuY2Vfd2lubmVyc19sb3NlcnNfYW

" WASHINGTON – Big business and free speech won. Campaign finance reform lost. Political parties and many candidates, too. And for voters, there's both an upside and a downside.
The Supreme Court's monumental decision upending decades of campaign finance law has a slew of winners and losers.
It frees corporations, and by extension unions, to spend as much as they want to call for the victory or defeat of federal political candidates — by name — in commercials and literature. As long as there's no coordination with the candidates or campaigns.
The ruling cuts both ways for voters. They will probably get more information about candidates. But they'll probably have to endure an even bigger crush of ads on their TVs and radios, as well as leaflets in their mailboxes.
Thursday's decision shook the political landscape, and it could have an enormous effect on this fall's midterm elections and beyond. Here's a look at who made out and who didn't.
WINNER:
_Voters. Not sure where a candidate stands on an issue? Not sure how to vote? Need more information to make a wise decision? Never fear. Corporations and unions are likely to tell you their version of things now that they're freed from restrictions. But buyer beware: It's still up to voters to separate fact from fiction.
LOSER:
_Voters. Had enough of campaign ads? Too bad. People probably will have to endure even more now that corporations and unions can spend as much as they want from their general treasuries right up to the moment of an election. Voters will have to discern the motivations behind the ad campaigns as best they can. And more ads will only boost the potential for more salacious spots and negative campaigning.
WINNER:
_Corporations and unions. These high-dollar entities can now can spend freely to support or oppose named candidates for president and Congress. By a 5-4 vote, the court overturned a 20-year-old ruling barring such ads.
LOSER:
_Political parties and many candidates. More voices in the mix means candidates and parties will have even less control of the message. And they won't be able to do anything to stop groups from running ads they don't like. Still, cash-strapped candidates could welcome such independent spending that attacks an opponent. Political parties now face more restrictions than outside groups on election-time communications.
WINNER:
_The First Amendment. The ruling was clearly a victory for this pillar of democracy. Critics of the stricter limits had argued that they amount to an unconstitutional restraint of free speech, and the court majority agreed. There certainly will be even more of a marketplace of ideas. Corporations and unions can now advertise what they please.
LOSER:
_Civility and truthfulness. Watch out candidates: You may not like what you hear. And there will be little you can do about it. Both Republicans and Democrats say ads are likely to get tougher now that outside groups can expressly advocate for or against candidates. And it will be up to voters to sort through the clutter.
WINNER:
_Media companies, TV and radio stations. They already see a financial windfall every two and four years during congressional and presidential campaigns. Paydays could be even bigger now. A flood of corporate and union money for ads in federal campaigns is expected as early as this fall's midterm campaigns.
LOSERS:
_Sens. John McCain, R-Ariz., and Russ Feingold, D-Wis. They are the fathers of the landmark McCain-Feingold campaign finance bill that sought to restrain the influence of money on elections. The justices struck down the part of the law that barred union- and corporate-paid issue ads in the closing days of election campaigns.
___
EDITOR'S NOTE — Liz Sidoti has covered national politics for The Associated Press since 2003.


And you think FOTD can rage....sh!t, he's not even on a big nationwide network.

"this corporate nation"

[Cats Cats Cats]

As we grow more and more globalized.  We will start seeing foreign countries having sway in our elections.